Author Topic: Re: Obama (Read 19177 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #100 on:** January 08, 2011, 02:42:33 PM »

The theory of it is not there. What do you suppose "religion" meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written?

stefferweffer · « **Reply #101 on:** January 08, 2011, 04:06:31 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on January 08, 2011, 02:00:30 PM

@Steffer (because I'm not quoting that huge block of text)
Really, that's the battle you're choosing to fight?
Also you should probably read your evidence before posting it 'cause
Quote
recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a life stance,
I don't know why you decided to make this the heart of your campaign but either way good for you .
Now let's get back on topic since you ignored it the first time I ask you again
Quote
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?

Why even bother asking that question if you already know how a Christian will answer it? If I truly believe the bible, then OF COURSE I believe that every human being is held accountable to God. Not MY God, as you say it, just GOD. The entire planet was obviously held to God's standards of right and wrong when He destroyed the world with a flood, and it is no different now. You seem to think that one is held only to the standards which they personally believe to be true. Hello anarchy. Or perhaps you think that nothing actually exists until the point that you believe in it? Unless you think that society/government should make NO laws, then you must concede that the individual is held to a standard of some kind. So is it simply what the majority deems right and wrong that makes it so?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #102 on:** January 08, 2011, 04:23:12 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 08, 2011, 02:42:33 PM

The theory of it is not there. What do you suppose "religion" meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written?

Quote from: First Ammendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall not establish a state religion, shall not limit the practicing of any religion, shall not prevent crticism of the government or any other established entity, especially in concerns to the press; additionally, Congress shall not prevent the people from peaceably assembling for any reason, not shall they prevent the people from air any greivences against and Congress.

Religion in this case at the time of writing would seem to imply an established organization of people worshipping together. The stereotypical "religion" is what is meant here.

JSB23 · « **Reply #103 on:** January 08, 2011, 04:44:56 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on January 08, 2011, 04:06:31 PM

Quote from: JSB23 on January 08, 2011, 02:00:30 PM
@Steffer (because I'm not quoting that huge block of text)
Really, that's the battle you're choosing to fight?
Also you should probably read your evidence before posting it 'cause
Quote
recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a life stance,
I don't know why you decided to make this the heart of your campaign but either way good for you .
Now let's get back on topic since you ignored it the first time I ask you again
Quote
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?

Why even bother asking that question if you already know how a Christian will answer it? If I truly believe the bible, then OF COURSE I believe that every human being is held accountable to God. Not MY God, as you say it, just GOD. The entire planet was obviously held to God's standards of right and wrong when He destroyed the world with a flood, and it is no different now. You seem to think that one is help only to the standards which they personally believe to be true. Hello anarchy. Or perhaps you think that nothing actually exists until the point that you believe in it? Unless you think that society/government should make NO laws, then you must concede that the individual is held to a standard of some kind. So is it simply what the majority deems right and wrong that makes it so?

Laws are put in place to protect the rights of citizens, not for some "moral" reason

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #104 on:** January 08, 2011, 04:53:37 PM »

Stef, he isn't arguing on a global scale. He is arguing on a governmental scale, with the assumption that the government is secular.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #105 on:** January 08, 2011, 05:15:40 PM »

@JSB23
Prove to me that killing is wrong without morals. Then prove that being alive is a "right".

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #106 on:** January 08, 2011, 05:20:30 PM »

Being alive the static position of any person. You can not change the static position of a person (in a kill, murder sense, not a I had a heart attack sense) without their permission. Doing so would violate thier natural right to life due to the right to maintain equilibrium.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #107 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 05:20:30 PM

Being alive the static position of any person. You can not change the static position of a person (in a kill, murder sense, not a I had a heart attack sense) without their permission. Doing so would violate thier natural right to life due to the right to maintain equilibrium.

I'm curious how you apply this to the rights of an unborn child. You cannot deny that it is in a static position of being "alive". (The fact that it depends on other human beings to stay alive is no different than many people in the hospital right now, so please don't go down that road.)

I'm pretty sure that my static, natural state is without health insurance too. Is it a violation of my "static position" of not owning anything that I have not purchased (or been given as a gift) to force me to purchase something that I do not want?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #108 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:04:56 PM »

We also have the precedent of paying for fire and police protection, wither we want it or not.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #109 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:20:48 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on January 08, 2011, 06:00:12 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 05:20:30 PM
Being alive the static position of any person. You can not change the static position of a person (in a kill, murder sense, not a I had a heart attack sense) without their permission. Doing so would violate thier natural right to life due to the right to maintain equilibrium.
I'm curious how you apply this to the rights of an unborn child. You cannot deny that it is in a static position of being "alive". (The fact that it depends on other human beings to stay alive is no different than many people in the hospital right now, so please don't go down that road.)

I'm pretty sure that my static, natural state is without health insurance too. Is it a violation of my "static position" of not owning anything that I have not purchased (or been given as a gift) to force me to purchase something that I do not want?

I don't know why you brought abortion into it. It's a person so the same rules would apply. Please levae personal vendettas at the door.

I would say requiring health, car, or any other kind of insurance is a violation of rights, but it is a civilly decided agreement to deny personal right in order to protect the rights of another (the person you wreck into with your car). Health insurance does not really fit into that since it is your body so I don't see why we should require it (governmentally, of course). However, car insurance, etc, I am ok with, because obviously some right must be laid down in a country in order to prevent anarchy. If everyone had every right you would be looking at anarchy.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #110 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 04:23:12 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 08, 2011, 02:42:33 PM
The theory of it is not there. What do you suppose "religion" meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written?

Quote from: First Ammendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well, the whole ordeal of "Separation of church and state" stems from a personal letter that Thomas Jefferson sent, the First Amendment itself was not the original document cited. The First Amendment's statement about "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is like a two-sided coin. Following the First Amendment, the government should have no say in an example of the 10 Commandments being on display inside a courthouse because that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At the same time, all religions should have the ability to express their writings inside the courthouse as well. Prayer cannot be banned from schools by the government, because the individual student has the right to exercise their religion, however, no student should be REQUIRED to listen to it. As with all things, if the majority of students agree that a prayer from a specific religion should be included in a ceremony, then it shall be so that it does not interfere with the rights of those who did not agree. We did the same thing in bootcamp. A company prayer was allowed almost every night, but only those who wanted to participate, participated.

When viewing the First Amendment as such, your "Separation of Church and State Theory" seems relatively weak in my personal opinion, because you're looking at the coin from only one side.

-C_S

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #111 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:30:08 PM »

The court pointed out in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that after the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states, the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the court said governments may not show a preference for "religion to irreligion."

I got that from a site that JSB previously cited on this thread when he posted a excerpt from this paragraph. Seems like the Supreme Court doesn't agree that the government has no say of a 10 commandments outside a court room, because that is a sign of passive support for Christianity. Governmental policy has decided that the correct interpretation of the 1st ammendment is to support no religion (but not irreligion) rather than attempt to show support for all of them equally.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #112 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:46:13 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 06:30:08 PM

The court pointed out in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that after the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states, the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the court said governments may not show a preference for "religion to irreligion."

I got that from a site that JSB previously cited on this thread when he posted a excerpt from this paragraph. Seems like the Supreme Court doesn't agree that the government has no say of a 10 commandments outside a court room, because that is a sign of passive support for Christianity. Governmental policy has decided that the correct interpretation of the 1st ammendment is to support no religion (but not irreligion) rather than attempt to show support for all of them equally.

Regardless of that interpretation, based on the wording and context of the First Amendment, even a passive attempt at controlling any law that has anything to do with the free exercise of religion is against the First Amendment. You can't really cite the First Amendment as a source for the "Separation of Church and State" because the First Amendment does not say that. The true context of the First Amendment was so that there would be no specified Religion that represented the country, and as a result, dictate what can and cannot be practiced, hence, the United States IS NOT a Christian Nation. The Church of England had the power to make laws that affect the people and their ability to follow one religion over another. Remember the Crusades? All that bloodshed done in the name of religion? People being executed and persecuted because their morals/religion didn't align with Mother England's Catholicism? That's what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent. Not the petty "I'm offended" arguments. Again, my opinion, based loosely on historical context and conclusions derived from the period in time.

-C_S

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #113 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:49:01 PM »

That's all true and well and good but two centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree that the 1st ammendment is not about seperation of church and state.

Fun addendum for whenever megamanlan reads this:

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[47]

Straight from the treaty via the wiki.

The Schaef · « **Reply #114 on:** January 08, 2011, 08:33:23 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 12:39:49 PM

Time for a quick logic lesson. I actually don't really need to cite too much. I have mostly been asserting negatives (America is not a Christian Nation, Obama is not a Socialist, etc). You can not truly cite evidence for something that doesn't exist.

That's not entirely correct. Asserting a negative is still an assertion, just of a null hypothesis. In other words, it is in opposition to the statements of others that Obama aspires to socialism. You can still provide evidence in support of your assertion, in the same manner as those who wish to prove what you deny. You find something that cannot be true in both instances, and demonstrate that it favors your assertion and disproves the alternative. You can't prove a negative, but you can disprove a positive.

Quote from: JSB23 on January 08, 2011, 04:44:56 PM

Laws are put in place to protect the rights of citizens, not for some "moral" reason

In other words, because it is moral for those in authority to protect the rights of their constituents.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 06:49:01 PM

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

This conversation has been had before, about how there are a number of ways in which the United States could potentially be qualified as a "Christian nation" - and that establishing that it is not a theocratic government only disproves one of those qualifiers, not all of them.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #115 on:** January 08, 2011, 08:38:31 PM »

That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #116 on:** January 08, 2011, 08:45:29 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 06:49:01 PM

That's all true and well and good but two centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree that the 1st ammendment is not about seperation of church and state.

Fun addendum for whenever megamanlan reads this:

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[47]

Straight from the treaty via the wiki.

That is not declaring a complete separation of church and state. That is a treaty between two countries saying that their alliance and ability to coexist will not be changed because of religious reasons. The Separation of church and state argument is an internal debate, not an international debate and is in reference to what I stated above: That the church and state are two separate entities, but the First Amendment is not the source of that information. Also, this example that you provided does not mention the First Amendment at all so I'm not sure how you base your claim of "two centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree..." on it.

-C_S

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #117 on:** January 08, 2011, 09:05:40 PM »

I wasn't directing that part of that post to you. I would base my "two centuries of supreme court decisions" on the previous post where I posted about the Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #118 on:** January 08, 2011, 09:07:23 PM »

The talk about health care has ceased, but maybe I should add a heal ability to the card.

The Schaef · « **Reply #119 on:** January 08, 2011, 09:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 08:38:31 PM

That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.

Did you even read what I said in response?

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #120 on:** January 08, 2011, 09:13:17 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 09:05:40 PM

I wasn't directing that part of that post to you. I would base my "two centuries of supreme court decisions" on the previous post where I posted about the Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

My mistake. However, it would help if you had of quoted myself or whoever you were referring to.

-C_S

JSB23 · « **Reply #121 on:** January 08, 2011, 11:24:24 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 08, 2011, 08:33:23 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 06:49:01 PM
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

This conversation has been had before, about how there are a number of ways in which the United States could potentially be qualified as a "Christian nation" - and that establishing that it is not a theocratic government only disproves one of those qualifiers, not all of them.

Firstly: Citation needed
Secondly:
The US was not founded on the Christianity (Treaty of Tripoli)
The US can not make any laws based on the Bible (although a lot of people forget this one

) (First amendment and Everson v. Board of Education)

So how is US a christian nation

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #122 on:** January 09, 2011, 12:06:59 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 08, 2011, 09:08:27 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 08, 2011, 08:38:31 PM
That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.

Did you even read what I said in response?

Yes. I was responding that we are in no way a Christian Nation, even according to Washington's government, who is seen as the bastion of Christian founders.

The Schaef · « **Reply #123 on:** January 09, 2011, 12:26:41 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on January 08, 2011, 11:24:24 PM

Firstly: Citation needed

I'm happy to link back to older threads covering this topic though there seems to be a lack of consistency on who has to uphold such a cherished principle:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16049.msg250619#msg250619

Quote

The US was not founded on the Christianity

The government was not founded on the religion. That doesn't demonstrate anything apart from the absence of a theocracy, which I didn't think anyone here was unaware of. That is only one regard in which the US can be founded on "the Christianity".

Quote

The US can not make any laws based on the Bible

You're the first person I can recall in this or any other conversation on this topic that has even bothered to bring that up. So I don't see the point in arguing a claim no one is making.

Quote

So how is US a christian nation

I don't know, Josh, how can the the US be one of the largest Muslim nations in the world if the US was not founded on "the Islam"?

JSB23 · « **Reply #124 on:** January 09, 2011, 12:41:06 AM »

Quote

I don't know, Josh, how can the the US be one of the largest Muslim nations in the world if the US was not founded on "the Islam"?

The US isn't an Islamic nation

News:

Author Topic: Re: Obama (Read 19177 times)

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk

The Schaef

The Schaef